posted
Ah, I think I understand what you are saying, Amka. That the church can't cater to single women by giving them the priesthood just because they are not busy being mothers? I do think there is more to it than that, but that doesn't mean I know what it is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify for those who seem to feel that the "traditional" gender roles are natural law. My particular "traditional family" comes from reading books written at the time, and consists of the mother and father who are both at leisure to attend to family and community business as required, and servants who do a great deal of routine childcare, all of the cooking and housework, under direction of the parents. This tradition is actual historical fact.
In this tradition, both spouses were equally available to spend time in the nursery or on outings with the children, to attend to the business of ordering the community and seeing that everyone was cared for, to pursue the social and artistic life within the community, and to address any political issues at hand.
In the lower classes both spouses and all the children as well usually worked full time.
The inequality of gender roles with the woman staying home and the man working is not historical tradition. It's quite new, in fact.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first 'apology' wasn't an expression of apology but an expression of sorrow. Slightly different. I won't pretend not to be angry at the interpretation, but it is always sad when people would rather believe the meaning that is offensive. Wait, in order to not be mistaken as passive aggressive, let me restate that.
I think you would rather I had said something "appalling" so you could be properly and righteously offended at me, Kat. You seem refuse to believe that I said anything other than simply "The individual is worthless". It makes me angry, but it also honestly makes me sad.
I won't apologize for what I believe is a statement of truth, but what you say I said and what I said are two differen things. Of course, it is all here on the thread and people can decide for themselves what I meant.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The inequality of gender roles with the woman staying home and the man working is not historical tradition. It's quite new, in fact.
I'm not *quite* so sure that is true. While throughout time rich women have had servants to care for their children, throughout time most mothers have stayed pretty close to their children in whatever work they were doing, the fathers not so much.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the wrongness that I feel has to do with the fixed rule that says that women will never be allowed into the highest levels of leadership in the church. And that men by willingly considering women's needs and viewpoints can successfully lead women, but that women can't lead men. Women are almost never put in any position of authority over men in the church. That is the general area in which the wrongness creeps into my gut.
Again I ask if these things are not mere historical artifacts, like the unequal position of blacks in the church until 1978. And if there is not some higher teaching that if we could bring ourselves to be ready for it, we would receive, and so receive even greater blessings than we now have.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
But saying "I am sorry you chose to misunderstand" doesn't sound nearly as nice as "I honestly don't understand why what I said bothers you. I am trying to understand, and I am sorry that it does bother you. I do believe what I said, though."
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've been only talking about priesthood roles, and the role of the father and mother in a family.
I think those are very different issues from what men and women are capable of, and how much else they can contribute to society. Men can be fantastic interior designers and nurses, and women can be fantastic engineers and doctors.
Synth -
I disagree, a lot. We can only take our society to the next level when we, as individuals, have more concern for our society than for ourselves. When we ask the question: how will my actions affect those around me? How will it ripple out into the humanity I can barely comprehend? What is the butterfly effect to my actions? How can I make the world a better place for the most people?
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And that men by willingly considering women's needs and viewpoints can successfully lead women, but that women can't lead men.
I am of the belief (and I think it is pretty clear in LDS doctrine) that God does not do things arbitrarily, that the things He does are in alignment with things as they really are. Perhaps women are better at influencing the universe in more subtle ways rather than direct ways? Where as men are more likely to excell in directness rather than subtlety?
I think part of that can be explained by society, but again let's return to the theory of eternal gender. The idea is that these things *naturally* complement the genders rather than just being products of society. Perhaps society is responding to something deeper than most realize. Perhaps the very way mortality is set up is responding to something deeper. Like man being created with a more body mass, height, muscle ratio, etc., woman biologically having to invest so much in the act of procreation, the way hard labor has been crucial to survival for so much of our history, thus much of such work falling to the man.... This all assumes a belief in God and a universe with an innate order.
I have speculated that man's creations (modern technology) while blessing man greatly, has also de-emphasised things that were set into motion by God himself. As a result, people are questioning things put into motion by God. It would make sense that such things would preclude the prophecies fore-told about the "end of the world", for this and many other reasons.
A lot of this gets down to what do you believe personally about God and the universe?
posted
Amka, that makes sense to a certain extect. But we need to care for ourselves as individual people with our own needs and care for society at the same time. Sometimes the two go together. Helping inviduals help society, like changing attitudes about gay people will help many gay people and society.....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had no idea what it meant to be a mother until I had children. I experienced very strong instinctual reactions that my husband simply did not experience. With me, I seemed to know how to react to a baby's need and social interaction. With my husband, it took him quite a bit of time to learn how to react. In some cases, I had to explicitly teach him. His inabiltities were not due to something lacking in his education, just as my abilities were not due to some cultural advantage I had. It simply was.
Interesting. Immediately after reading this, I turned to Christy and asked, "Have you found this to be the case?" Because, y'know, I NEVER had to take care of children while growing up, and was rather proud of the fact that I'd never even changed a diaper by the time Sophie was born -- and yet, in the three weeks she's been born, I've never felt particularly confused, distracted, or out of my element. I've never NOT known how to soothe her or feed her; I've never been at anything resembling a complete loss. And while Christy spends more time with her each day (for obvious reasons), I've still been able to notice things that she hasn't -- like, for example, that Sophie prefers to flop her head to the right (to answer a doctor's question). I haven't seen anything so far to indicate any natural gift, or lack thereof, for parenting. I don't think this is because I'm a spectacular example of fatherhood, nor because Christy's sub-par at motherhood; I think we're just both okay so far at parenting.
quote:I do, though, believe in a "Platonic ideal", if you will of maleness and femaleness beyond what society programs into us. I believe those echoes can be found in each of us, despite our variation. I believe in the idea of gender that transcends this mortal body.
posted
Perhaps a balance between the two? Certainly society does better when people are willing to sacrifice for something bigger than themselves, but I also think we need to be aware of individual needs.
Case and point: The LDS church is now an international church. There are some ways that they need to adjust to that. For instance: In the Philippines, when missionaries were first sent, they only spoke English. Since English was supposedly a national language of the Philippines (and still is) this was not considered a problem.
Unfortunately, only the "rich" and "educated" spoke English with any proficiency. On the one hand, this provided a strong beginning for the church with a solid base of people who were not desperate financially and had experience with leadership. On the other hand, plenty of people were baptized not understanding the gospel they were taught! Much harm was done there by well-meaning and sometimes not-so-well-meaning young missionaries.
Eventually, missionaries returned with a rudimentary understanding of one of the major native languages. They began a program of teaching it to the new missionaries. But the program wasn't very good because they didn't understand the language very well and there was a dirth of good text-material for learning it.
By the time I went, one of my teachers was one of those who had to just "pick up the language" with no prior training. He made some mistakes. The Book of Mormon was not fully translated. All I had to offer the people was a very brief "good-parts version" (heh heh) which wasn't very good. What bothered me most was there was no Tagalog hymnal.
Now, I am of the belief that these translations could have happened much faster with the help of the Filipino converts that was available. It was *years* in coming Why didn't it come faster? There have been translations in so many other languages for so long.
Perhaps the church leaders didn't think it was urgent. I got this sense from my mission president also. It seems they were not aware of the dirth, the great need. I don't think they were aware of how many Filipino's didn't have a strong enough grasp of English to benefit from English materials. They were being human, since human they are.
But they did get it done. They listened when they became aware of the need. Now the translations for both The Book of Mormon and the hymnal are complete! It makes me sooooo happy to see.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Speaking from a strictly biological standpoint, mother's do have hormonal "cues" and "instincts" that help them along in motherhood. Some studies show that fathers may go through some similar sympathetic hormonal changes, but they are to a lesser extent.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you can place any caveats on the statement "an individual is worthless" and have it be okay.
No Ami, I'm not trying to be offended and I'm not choosing to take things wrong. I'm honestly horrified that you'd ever answer a question about the church with a statement that someone is worthless, no matter what caveats follow the statement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Maybe I will be able to comment on this if I ever have time to read it. I'd like to. Interesting topic, AK.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the kind of discussion I would like to find some way for members in general to have. And in a wider sense, it would be nice if Catholics, Muslims, Fundamentalist Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and people of any other religion could even talk about it together, to gain whatever insights there are to be gained from each others' systems and experiences. It's a bigger thing than just one faith. It's all across western technological civilization.
I don't have an example from church leadership, but an excellent example comes to mind from Indian political history of what I mean when I say it feels wrong to me to have no women in the highest circles of leadership. Once in India under the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi, there was a rash of rapes in the cities. The male lawmakers responded by putting forth a bill instituting a curfew for women after dark. Indira Gandhi said, "Why not limit men instead of women? After all it's not women who are raping people." And she countered with that proposal. Naturally the whole idea of solving the problem by curfew was then dropped. It is essential that women take equal part in decisions which affect an entire society. Men, however well-intentioned, are not always able to see things from the same point of view.
Just as we would not accept a government which excluded minorities as being truly able to address the needs and problems of minorities, no matter how well intentioned, the same thing may be true for churches.
[ August 02, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I'm asking is this. We know that we can't receive the revelation until as a church we are ready for it. What do we do to prepare ourselves to receive any new revelation on this subject? How can we bring ourselves to a state of readiness so that the revelation can come, and the greater blessings accrue?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you say things like "being a woman sucked", you also mean that having to fit into the narrow gender roles prescribed by that particular society at that particular time sucked. You keep using phrases that make me think you are thinking of these things as natural law of some sort. They are not that at all.
ak, I only recently caught this statement. Please realize that I believe that most of the things that "sucked" for women were man-made, not God-made. As I said before, I think a lot was dumped on women when men vilified Eve.
I laugh at their statements of women being "sensuous and evil" in nature, as though all women are seductresses at heart. Women would not learn to become seductresses if men were not so responsive to the temptation! I always thought it was the men being sensuous that was the source of the problem rather than the effect.
As for "sucking" in other ways, well, bearing children and other health issues that women faced were a lot harder back then. Dealing with men's combined aggressiveness and sex drive could really suck too.
I did say that I believe that God set things up a certain way for His own reasons. I don't think I know those reasons, I only have my own theories, half-formed though they may be.
And also as I said before, I believe that modern day conveniences have been both a blessing and a curse to mankind.
I am not *quite* sure what you meant when you said I keep saying these things as though they are some natural law. Do you mean I think being a woman "sucked" because of some natural law? What does that mean? Things were the way they were. Some of it was man-made philosophy, some was in response to the circumstances. The latter *is* a natural law, albeit, a natural law that has little effect on our modern society due to technology, medicine, and the many conveniences provided. Natural in the sense that that was how things were then.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't have an example from church leadership, but an excellent example comes to mind from Indian political history of what I mean when I say it feels wrong to me to have no women in the highest circles of leadership. Once in India under the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi, there was a rash of rapes in the cities. The male lawmakers responded by putting forth a bill instituting a curfew for women after dark. Indira Gandhi said, "Why not limit men instead of women? After all it's not women who are raping people." And she countered with that proposal. Naturally the whole idea of solving the problem by curfew was then dropped. It is essential that women take equal part in decisions which affect an entire society. Men, however well-intentioned, are not always able to see things from the same point of view.
I think this is a very good point. I think this is one of the reason why women leaders sit in on the Bishopric Council where important decisions are made. I would assume that higher church councils include the General Relief Society Presidency.
It is very much like your story. The men might still be "in charge", but the women have their say. And if the men are wise, they will listen to the women.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I just heard this sense of inevitability about it. "You're a woman and being a woman sucks." (Hypothetically said to a girl back then, for instance.)
I am seeing from a perspective in which the phrase "being a women" is not defined societally, as having no choice about whom one will marry, having no vote, having no choice of how many children to have, having no access to higher education or most professions, etc. These are temporal things, and depend on society at the time and place a woman finds herself.
I guess I'm asking if the phrase "being a women" isn't really a much broader thing than society supposes.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess what I'm asking is this. We know that we can't receive the revelation until as a church we are ready for it. What do we do to prepare ourselves to receive any new revelation on this subject? How can we bring ourselves to a state of readiness so that the revelation can come, and the greater blessings accrue?
Exactly what kind of revelation are you seeking? If you are seeking for women to hold the priesthood, what if that really isn't part of God's pattern/order? What if that is a good thing? I don't think it is evil for you to pray for it, but it may not happen. I'm not sure how many you would convince to pray for it either.
But if you are praying for women to be more active in the leadership of the church, are you sure that they are not already? Just a thought.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I just heard this sense of inevitability about it. "You're a woman and being a woman sucks." (Hypothetically said to a girl back then, for instance.)
I don't think being a woman sucks. I certainly don't think God intended being a woman to be a bad thing. I am glad that I live today so that being a woman is easier. I am sorry for the things my ancestors had to suffer back then. I hope they were made the stronger for it.
quote: I am seeing from a perspective in which the phrase "being a women" is not defined societally, as having no choice about whom one will marry, having no vote, having no choice of how many children to have, having no access to higher education or most professions, etc. These are temporal things, and depend on society at the time and place a woman finds herself.
I think these were all man-made and wrongfully imposed on women. But at the same time, there is a part of me that understands the reasoning behind some of these things when life--out of necessity--was so different than today. That doesn't mean I think they were right, I just understand why they developed that way.
posted
In the case of my story, of course, the woman was in the executive position. Had she not been there, or even if only one woman was there in a lesser position, would she really have been heard?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am hope the women of this church do make themselves heard. Both in leadership positions and not. And I hope the men listen. If these things do not happen, I think something is wrong.
But, (there's always a but, right?) let's say the women were all asking for a point of church doctrine to be changed. Let's assume that change would be in opposition to God's will. I have nothing specific in mind, this is just hypothetical. Should the men listen to the desires of the women, or to what God says?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the case of my story, of course, the woman was in the executive position. Had she not been there, or even if only one woman was there in a lesser position, would she really have been heard?
ak, I am confident that the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency often seek the counsel and advice of the General Relief Society Presidency, the General Primary Presidency, and the General Young Women's Presidency. I wouldn't be surprised at all if much of what we hear from the pulpit is influenced by their wisdom and counsel. We also get to hear from those women from the pulpit directly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh definitely what God says goes. But how do we become ready to hear any change in his teachings?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: Usually neither. And if they said "this came from God" it would be because the people needed to know the source on that particular thing. It might even be that a Relief Society Presidency member said it, the words were from God, the apostle recognized it as such, and stated it was from God.
ak: I think as members of the church, we always need to be ready for new revelation from God. We have had the message for a long time that we need to embrace the teachings of The Book of Mormon more fully before we can receive many of the further scripture that God has in store for us. We also know we must have faith like that of the brother of Jared before we can know the things that he knew. We will be under a much heavier responsibility when we receive more of God's word, and we need to be ready for that responsibility.
Also like your thoughts on whether or not to go to the temple yet. While certainly everyone is invited to prepare for such a thing, no one should rush into it unprepared. They need to be ready to accept the greater responsibilities that come with the added blessings.
Basically, I think we need to keep doing what we know is right and do our best, drawing nearer to God on an individual basis and as a community of saints. The thing we need to be prepared for most of all is Christ's return. Those of us who have known the gospel will be responsible at that time for how we received it. Especially since faith will become knowledge at that point. Once you have sure knowledge, it is too late to develop faith.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is conferred on all "worthy" young men/men. As things are now, the Aaronic, or preparatory priesthood, is conferred on boys as early as age 12 who are found worthy in their priesthood interview. They participate in the ordinance of passing the sacrement and other early tasks. In some wards, they collect fast offerings from the members. As time goes on they have various opportunities to perform service and other duties. They may have the opportunity to assist in Home Teaching. Later, they may participate in blessing the sacrement. There may be other things I have forgotten here. I think at this point they may perform the ordinance of baptism also. All of this under the direction of the bishop of that ward who is the President of the Aaronic Priesthood for that ward. They are Deacons at 12, Teachers at 14, and Priests at 16.
Sometime after the age of 18, they may receive the Melchezidek priesthood. This is the "full" priesthood. They are at this time called to be an "elder" and this quite often comes right before serving a mission. It does not have to though, especially now with the more strict rules for who can serve missions. They are called "Elder" on their missions, but not afterwards, though technically they are still elders. They can officiate in most of the ordinances, including the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, blessings of comfort and healing of the sick, and certain temple ordinances. The authority to seal families is only given to a select few.
Men who are called to leadership positions such as in the bishopric and above become "High Priests". It is a higher office in the Melchezidek priesthood, but it is the same full priesthood.
"Keys" refer to authority within the priesthood over certain areas. For instance, the bishop holds the "keys" to authority over his ward. He is responsible for taking care of their needs and overseeing all ward functions. He is also responsible for determining the worthiness of the members as in interviews for specific things.
Edit: Gee, I wrote all that and then realized I didn't answer your question!
Worthiness is the issue here, and things that would make a person not worthy include but are not restricted to: dishonesty, lack of chastity (this would include homosexual relations but not homosexual tendancies), not having faith, inappropriate conduct with others, especially family members, and generally anything weighing heavily on the guy that he feels he needs to repent of to be worthy.
A lot of the questions are fairly open, asking the individual to judge himself. For instance: Is there anything regarding your conduct with your family members that is not in accordance with God's teachings? (Something like that). That is really open-ended! So the person searches their heart and if they find something there is wrong, they say so. The bishop speaks with them about what they need to do to be worthy or if it is a minor thing that they just need to try to improve on.
posted
I think the most common thing barring men and youth from the priesthood is sexual impurity. Definitely. Without a doubt. It is dang hard, after all!
It happens frequently enough. I don't really know how much.
Edit: to explain further, priesthood holders need to refrain from: Pornography, masturbation, sexual contact with anyone outside the bonds of marriage, and pre-occupation with sex.
LDS men are strongly encouraged to be in control of their sex drive. (As are women, BTW) Absolute chasity before marriage and perfect fidelity within marriage. That is the expectation. But it is understandable that many will falter. Repentance is always open, but it isn't easy.
I just want to add that the LDS church encourages good sexual relations between marriage partners. It is not something "just for procreation" but one of the most wonderful gifts of God, designed to bind husband and wife in unity, love, and intimacy.
quote:No one here - lma, Theca, anne kate, me has said that they want to be more like men. I think they and I just want to be more like ourselves without being condemned as amoral and unnatural for it.
Thank you for that, kat. That is exactly how I feel. I'm just really tired of being treated like I'm broken because I'm not married and a mother. I don't want to be a man, or more like a man. I just want to be able to be myself without being constantly informed that who I am is wrong in the eyes of God. He made me this way, after all.
I just wish I had been able to be here to follow this thread during the day; it is very interesting. However, I had to be out of the house most of the day, so I couldn't. I do find that I have to address some issues that came up. So I hope I'll be forgiven for going back to things that were discussed a page or two ago.
I have to comment further on Amka's statement that the individual "shouldn't expect the same privileges as the family." This position just shouts "second class citizen." I am old enough to remember when Blacks were told that they shouldn't expect the same priveleges as whites. Gays are still being told that they shouldn't expect the same priveleges as straight people. And so, apparently, single straight adults shouldn't expect the same priveleges as married straight people. I'm afraid that this bothers me a lot.
This goes along with another statement I read earlier in the thread, that a woman with a "righteous husband" gives up further education. Is higher education another privelege that women, and not just single women, shouldn't expect? You see, that is another thing I heard a lot when I was younger, and still hear being told to other women today. "Why are you going to college? You'll just get married and have kids, and you don't need a college education for that. You shouldn't take up a man's place at school."
I hear this same basic attitude outside the church sometimes when I'm looking for work. "You don't have a family [even though I do have an elderly mother, whose sole caregiver I am], so you don't need the job." What? Because I don't have kids, it's okay for me to maybe starve? Is anyone here really ready to argue that "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" extends to the idea that one who is not married doesn't deserve to be able to make an honest living?
Another thing that struck me as I read through this thread was Beverly's statement that "nice" and "refined" is not the same as being submissive. Really, it ends up coming out that way. I don't know how many times - in and out of the church - I've had people try to talk me out of a position I've taken or a preference I've stated by someone telling me that I'm not being "nice" if I don't give in to them and submit to their preference or point of view. For far too long, women in American society have been raised to "give in" or people won't like them. This is the principle of "go along to get along", and I was not raised that way. My dad took great pains to teach me that if I truly hold my beliefs, I should stick to them.
There's a lot more that I'd like to say about the things that have been discussed in this thread, but this is already getting to be too long a post. Suffice it to say that while I have other issues with the church, both institutional and doctrinal, the issue of how women, and especially single women, are treated is a big one. And I don't honestly think that the treatment of single people in the church is exclusively a "women's problem". From what I've seen, single men in the church don't get a lot of respect, either.
Anyway. I think this discussion is a very healthy one, and should be going on a lot more places than just here at Hatrack.
quote: "Why are you going to college? You'll just get married and have kids, and you don't need a college education for that. You shouldn't take up a man's place at school."
Grrrrrrrrrrrr
*gets urge to bite something*
quote: "You don't have a family [even though I do have an elderly mother, whose sole caregiver I am], so you don't need the job."
Bizzare-O. Man, what sort of people are giving you this kind of advice?
quote: Another thing that struck me as I read through this thread was Beverly's statement that "nice" and "refined" is not the same as being submissive. Really, it ends up coming out that way. I don't know how many times - in and out of the church - I've had people try to talk me out of a position I've taken or a preference I've stated by someone telling me that I'm not being "nice" if I don't give in to them and submit to their preference or point of view. For far too long, women in American society have been raised to "give in" or people won't like them. This is the principle of "go along to get along", and I was not raised that way. My dad took great pains to teach me that if I truly hold my beliefs, I should stick to them.
Remember my comment about the double-standard that women get called bitches for the same sorts of behavior men are applauded for? People need to be more aware of this. I do think being "nice" and "refined" do not have to mean "submissive". I feel like I can be firm in my opinions without compromising those two. Unless I get really ticked off....
posted
Wow! What a thread! I wanted to post earlier today, but I didn't want to post without reading the whole thread, and I didn't have time to read it all earlier.
quote:
quote:I was pretty annoyed that somebody who doesn't believe in Christ at all was telling me that I was believing in him wrong.
But was your annoyance in that they were using Christ as an example, or because you truly felt they were using the examples incorrectly?
It bothered me that he was using Christ as an example even though he didn't believe in Christ. To him, Jesus was just an example to throw in my face to prove to me I should change my ways. He used him as just another foil to help use an argument.
Of course I thought his examples were incorrect. If I agreed with him about the example, I would have agreed with him about the political issue as well.
What really bugged me was that he didn't agree with himself. He didn't believe that he should model his own life from Jesus' teachings, but he expected me to model my life from a unbeliever's interpretation of Jesus's life.
I really don't understand why anybody would get upset about what another church does. Unless you belong to that church, what do you care? Take, for example, the case of the gay Episcopalian bishop. Why should I care if they allow or don't allow gay bishops? It's not my church.
quote: When the church makes up over three-fourths of the population, it does represent society. To say otherwise would be like saying that the most popular Democrat or Republican views don't represent their respective parties.
No, it doesn't. It means it has a large affect on that society, but you canoot lay every problem in that society at the feet of the church. The same would be true if the population was 100% members of that church. The church would still be only a part of that society, not the entirity of it.
quote: I know of women who hate the idea of motherhood. They have no "instinct" for it, no desire for it at all.
This makes me think of my feelings toward fatherhood. I have never liked children, and I didn't really want to become a father. But I knew that it was the right thing to do. And it was the best thing I could have done. I still don't like kids, but man, I sure love mine. Things like this make me so happy to to a member of the LDS church. Because of the church, time and time I have done things that I never would have done otherwise, and I become a better, happier person because of it each time.
quote: that's why I wuv Bev and Mr. Head is a very lucky guy.
Since we became active on hatrack, people keep telling me that. Thanks for reminding me.
quote:How did gender roles in society develop? Well before religion...
I personally don't believe ther ever was a "before religion", so we'd probably just talk past each other concerning this.
quote:A man's vital component takes, what - five minutes? Give or take? Whereas the woman needs to be relatively safe for 9 months.
Actually, in the old days before baby food (and assuming no wet nurse was available), it could easily be 3, 4, 5, or more years.
quote:A man isn't less of a man if he does housework.
Shhh!!!! Don't say that so loud! My wife might hear!
quote:As for family roles, my ideal would be for both my husband and I to work part time and to share the housekeeping and child raising duties.
Oh, I really wish that this were more of an option in America. It's almost impossible have a professional job (like engineer) and work only part time. It's like part-time work is only for teenagers and college students.
For example, take health insurance. It should be possible to work 1/2 time (20 hours a week) and get 1/2 benefits. But I know of no company that does this. Instead, you have to work full time, or you aren't worthy of basics necessities like health insurance.
quote:
quote: Well, for one thing, high leadership roles require the higher priesthood, which requires marriage.
Is this true? If it is, I had never though of it before. Is it required for a bishop or apostle to be married? I honestly don't know.
As far as I know, yes. I have never heard of anybody even called as a bishop without being married (or a widower). I have see or known of single men being bishop's counselors and branch presidents, but never bishop or higher. I don't know of it being doctrine, but it sure is policy.
quote:The inequality of gender roles with the woman staying home and the man working is not historical tradition. It's quite new, in fact.
I'm gonna agree with Amka in that it seems to be derived from traditional agrarian roles.
quote: For some reason I take a bit of offense over this statement
quote: Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood.
I think that it was meant more in the way a peach is not equal to a steak, not in the way that $20 is not equal to $10. Just because two things aren't the same doesn't mean that one is better than the other.
quote:The Primary President who supervises me as a teacher, and who I've voluntarily given my support to, is a woman.
I also serve in the primary oranization under a woman.
Oh, and just so that you know, I'm ignoring those last posts by fallow and Trevor.
posted
Bev - I am _so_ not going to try and explain that one.
Mph-
You're welcome.
Before any religion we recognize today? How spiritual were the first primitives as they figured out how to walk upright? Until they could form the concept of "god?" Unless, of course, you literally subscribe to Creationism, at which point yes -we can move on.
Yes - by comparison, the male component, ego notwithstanding, is still about five minutes. But you see the parallel between expendable and not.
posted
Yes, I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. There's much there open for interpretation (for example, I don't believe the days mentioned in that chapter were 24 of our hours), but I do believe that there was an Adam and Eve who were the first man and woman. I believe that they spoke with and worshiped God and taught their children to worship Him as well.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sexual impurity may be a very common reason why the man is denied the priesthood, but it certainly isn't the only one.
Drinking alcohol, smoking, or illegal drug use would make a man unworthy.
Doing the kinds of things that would get him in juvenile detention or jail would make a man unworthy.
There are other cases where someone could be worthy but still not recieve the priesthood, and that would be if they were mentally disabled to the point where they couldn't understand what the priesthood was.
LMA -
On the attitude some expressed about college education, I find that very wrong. If it were so, why does BYU even bother admitting women? Why are young women constantly taught to get an education?
Beverly also made a great point about there being seasons in a woman's life. I think that is very true.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are also some men that would be found worthy for the priesthood by their bishop, but that don't feel ready for the it yet, and so decide to wait.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No matter how the season's change, the male voices remain the same. Calm, rational, to the point with accumen. N'er swaying from the dictatious role.
quote: I really don't understand why anybody would get upset about what another church does. Unless you belong to that church, what do you care? Take, for example, the case of the gay Episcopalian bishop. Why should I care if they allow or don't allow gay bishops? It's not my church.
Indeed, why should you care what anyone or any organization does? It's not you or yours....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I find strange about this discussion is that it's happening here. Or rather, that it's not happening anywhere I am (physically).
The most obvious example happened while I was at Harding. For one assignment in one of my honors classes, I wrote a paper on exactly this subject, taking the feminist side. The prof gave me a good smacking-down for not thoroughly investigating one of my authors, but more important was the reaction of my classmates. Several of the guys took my side, but all of the young ladies except one thought the idea was ridiculous--why would they want to be in positions of authority? They had more than enough to do as it was. More than that, almost all of them were from congregations considerably more liberal than mine (therefore more likely to be in favor).
Since then, I've encountered much the same reaction everywhere, except online. Possibly one or two women in favor of women in positions of authority, all the others against.
I suppose it is possible that the differences in our churches' authority structures account for part of this, but still it seems downright strange to me.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It is dang hard, after all!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
